| September 4, 2005 | Sunday | Rajab 29, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Turkey’s EU prospects
Poor maternal health care
Reforming madressahs
War without remedy
WHY are the ulema opposed to the registration of madaris (seminaries) when they claim that these are not the breeding ground of extremism and hatred? And if they do not teach and preach sectarian hatred and do not indoctrinate their students to kill non-believers, then why are they apprehensive about the implications of registration?
IT IS heartening that the India-Pakistan composite dialogue is making good progress. The second round, which will be completed with a number of meetings scheduled for the coming weeks, has resulted in a number of agreements on the eight areas defined in the framework that was worked out when the dialogue was launched last year. These include several confidence-building measures (CBMs), bus services between various points on either side of the border, economic and trade cooperation, promoting and intensifying people-to-people contact at every level and negotiating on sensitive issues such as the Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage and Siachen.
The understanding reached between the two sides after years of distrust and confrontation testifies to a measure of goodwill that has been created between them. The fact is that once they decided to give up the military option, India and Pakistan have gradually been strengthening their ties and working to ease tensions, especially in the strategic area. All this will have a beneficial impact on international relations in the region and in forging economic linkages among countries of South Asia. But Pakistan’s concern has been that while relations with India are moving towards normalization, the dispute on Kashmir remains unresolved. Not surprisingly, Pakistan has periodically reminded India of the need to resolve the “core issue of Kashmir” before the two countries can be said to have reached a state of détente.
On Thursday, President Musharraf reminded the Indian foreign secretary when he called on the president that Kashmir remained the main issue and should now be taken up at all levels. Although the pace of progress on Kashmir is not as encouraging as the developments in other areas, it must be conceded that in the last year or so there has been more exchange of views and interaction on the issue than ever before. The most significant development is that the two sides have abandoned their rigid stance on the dispute and are now willing to explore new avenues to reach a settlement acceptable to all the parties concerned. Previously, India would refuse to even talk about Kashmir claiming it to be an integral part of the Indian Union. Pakistan would insist on the UNCIP resolutions being the basis of a solution. Now they are talking about the dispute with an open mind. The APHC leaders are also gradually being engaged in the on-going dialogue — they have visited Pakistan and met the leaders here and now they are to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh next week. The importance of these meetings cannot be over-emphasized. For in the final analysis, it is clear that any solution worked out for Kashmir must have the explicit approval of the Kashmiris if it is to be implemented successfully. It is encouraging that India has reassured Pakistan that it agrees with this point of view.
President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be meeting again on September 14 on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York. They will thus get an opportunity to review the progress so far made in their dialogue. They will also be able to set new short-term goals and guidelines for their negotiators. Their joint striving for peace is something which has been universally welcomed and one hopes that the momentum of the present achievements will expedite the pace of the peace process.
OCTOBER 3 is a month away, but it is still doubtful whether the European Union will finally begin entry negotiations with Turkey. The extent of Ankara’s frustration is evident from Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul’s latest statement. In an interview with a British magazine, Mr Gul said that Turkey would abandon the EU membership drive if Europe demanded new concessions from Ankara for beginning negotiations. As he put it, “we will walk away. And this time it will be for good.” He was echoing Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s views that Ankara had no more concessions to make. Even though obstacles in the way of negotiations keep cropping up regularly, the problem now centres round Cyprus. According to the entry mandate as interpreted by the EU, Turkey must open its ports and airports to the Greek Cypriot republic, which Turkey does not recognize. Recently, it signed a protocol extending its customs union to the 10 new EU members but insisted that this did not amount to recognizing Greek Cyprus. Turkey also says that the customs union covers goods and not services, and that it will let Greek Cypriot ships and planes use its facilities only after full membership.
The way things are shaping up, it looks doubtful if entry negotiations — if they begin at all — will be smooth. Greek Cyprus has threatened to block negotiations, and the French attitude has hardened. Twice, President Jacques Chirac has asked Turkey to clarify its position with regard to Greek Cyprus, and French voters have rejected the EU constitution because of uneasiness over a Muslim country becoming part of Europe. It will be a bad day for Europe if Turkey abandoned its membership bid. A Muslim country that takes pride in its secular outlook, Turkey is in an ideal position to serve as a bridge between Europe and the Muslim world. Its history and geography have endowed it with that role. Denying Turkey membership will mean that Europe insists on remaining a Christian club. This is hardly going to advance a Muslim-Christian dialogue which both sides have been emphasizing since 9/11. On the contrary, such a retrogressive decision will help extremist forces, which believe in confrontation rather than a process of dialogue, understanding and mutual accommodation.
THE abysmal figures, given the other day by the federal health minister, for the number of women dying of pregnancy-related causes should come as no surprise in a country where proper health care for expecting mothers and newborns is virtually non-existent. In fact, the minister’s figures (340 to 400 maternal deaths for 100,000 live births in 2003) may not reflect the reality, as according to UN figures, the maternal mortality rate for 2002 was 530 per 100,000 live births. In fact, in some areas of the country, the number of women dying is as high as 1,800 per 100,000 live births. This shows that the situation is abysmal, with the continuing dearth of proper medical facilities taking its toll on pregnant and postpartum women, especially in rural areas where access to maternal health clinics is limited.
While it is true that maternal health care is closely linked to the overall health system, it is also important to note that the characteristic neglect of women and their welfare has much to do with the poor care they receive. The high percentage of anaemic pregnant women in the country is one indication of this. Deprived of iron-rich food in adequate amounts, expecting mothers go on to develop conditions that place their health, and that of their unborn child, at risk during pregnancy and after delivery. There can be no substitute for better health outreach for these women and for the presence of trained birth attendants in villages and remote areas. But it is equally necessary to eliminate the gender bias that exists in society if we are to make it to the ranks of nations that have a population of healthy mothers and children.
The truth is that if not all a large number of madaris keep their activities secret and do not allow free access to people who want to verify their claims.
There is enough evidence available in the form of literature, sermons, public statements and even eyewitness accounts of their former students to support the charge that many of them teach their pupils to become militants and even suicide bombers. A very open display of the ideology of extremism and jihad preached in madaris and mosques can be seen in the wall chalking all over Pakistan — from the remotest corners of Chitral to the crowded streets of Karachi.
A recent report in one of the English dailies quoted the president of the Tanzeem-ul-Madaris Ahl-e-Sunnat as saying that no military training was going on in any Pakistani madressah. However, he asserted that madaris could not withdraw from “ideological education” of jihad. He added that ideological jihad education was something different from military training and it could not be eliminated from Islamic syllabus.
Even if his claim that no military training was going on in any madressah is true, can he deny that the jihad education has a great deal to do with propagation of hate and violence against non-Muslims and Muslims who are arbitrarily declared non-Muslim by the self-appointed guardians of Islam.
Ideological education in jihad mostly consists of sermons that preach hatred for Jews and Christians as enemies and Muslims with a differing point of view as “Murtids” (apostate) and therefore “wajib ul qatal” or deserving of death. This kind of education is clearly against the teachings of Quran and Sunnah, which call upon the Muslims to take up arms only in self-defence against armed aggression by an enemy.
Therefore, if the madaris are not teaching their students to consider all non-Muslims as enemies and to wage war against them, they should not hesitate to get themselves registered and even give free access to any observer who may wish to verify their claim that they neither give military training nor indoctrinate their students to hate the followers of other religions and sects.
Finally, according to a press report, madaris are opposed to registration because the ordinance seeks submission of audited reports by seminaries. So what is wrong with that? All NGOs, whether operating under the Societies Act of 1861 or any other law, are required to get their accounts audited and submit them to the authorities whenever asked to do so. Again, if the accounts of madaris are clean, if they are not involved in money laundering or if they are not receiving funds to fan sectarian strife or commit violence in the name of jihad or for any other illegal purposes and if they are not misusing or misappropriating the donations, they should not object to submitting an audited account to the concerned authorities.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt that a vast majority of ulema are opposed to all kinds of modern education. Their opposition to modern education goes back to the days of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who was declared a kafir by the ulema of his time for telling the Indian Muslims to learn English and study sciences.
Although for the last few years some have reluctantly started teaching English, maths, computer science and a few other secular subjects, their main purpose seems to be to make their students more efficient jihadis, like the 9/11 and 7/7 bombers, rather than to enable them to become members of the mainstream of society who are able to take up a job, make a decent living for themselves and their families and thereby contribute to the overall prosperity, development and wellbeing of the nation.
But the ulema in general still think, contrary to all available evidence, that teaching of English and sciences is unIslamic and leads to moral, cultural and religious degeneration. The reality is that they are afraid that teaching of English in madaris would make their students thinking, employable and moderate persons, which will undermine their hold on them and their ability to use them as foot soldiers of religious parties for wielding street power and blackmail.
The ulema do not, however, seem to understand that even if they succeed in their aim of producing militants and jihadis in millions, it will not enable them to either defeat the West or revive the glorious times of the Khulfa-i-Rashdin, which they cherish as their ultimate goal. If madressah education was enough to achieve such a lofty goal, the great Muslim empires of Abbasides, Fatimids, Ottomans, Safavids and the Moghuls would not have collapsed in the first place, and the West would not have succeeded in colonizing the Muslims for over a hundred years.
And what have the perpetrators of senseless acts of 9/11, 7/7 and similar other acts achieved so far except to engender hatred for Islam and Muslims all over the world? As for the US and UK, they have been rattled but remain economically, politically and militarily secure and strong. On the other hand, the Taliban have been ousted from power in Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda leaders are on the run. Therefore, those who believe that the madaris with their present curriculum can bring back the glory of Islam are living in a world of delusion.
If the great madaris of Al-Azhar and Nizamiyah and great Aalims like Ghazali and Shah Waliullah could not prevent the stagnation, degeneration and ultimate demise of Islamic empires, how can the madaris of today bring about Islamic revival?
The problem with the conservative ulema is that they were and still are unable to understand the real causes of the decline of the Islamic civilization. Whenever they are asked to explain it, they always give the same simple answer; “it is because Muslims have deviated from Islam”. But they never elaborate how and in what sense, because even when living under the colonial yoke and being lured with power, prestige and wealth by Christian missionaries, they did not convert to Christianity.
Here I quote from the book “Militant Islam” by G.H. Jansen (first edition 1979): “The 350 years long tussle between Islam and Christianity (from Indonesia to Morocco) was summed up thus by the foremost historian of Christian missions: ‘except through strong political and social pressure, Islam had never yielded many converts to Christianity’”. He adds that in 60 years of missionary work in Algeria the French missionaries could not convert more than 700 Muslims.
As for the Islamic tenets and other fundamental aspects of their faith, an overwhelming majority of Muslims continued to observe and practise them throughout the period of their enslavement. Even in the USSR, where the communist regime proscribed all religions and religious practices and made it a crime to observe them even privately, the Muslims never gave up Islam and continued to practise their faith secretly at the risk of heavy punishment. And, as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed a majority reverted to open practice of their faith.
So the reason for the downfall of Muslims lies not in their deviation from Islam but in these very madaris, which became the cold storage of Muslim thought and creativity. With the rise of Al-Asharis in the 11th century Baghdad, the Muslims became “taqleedis” (mere followers of tradition) and lost their spirit of intrepid enquiry, fearless pursuit of knowledge and adventure.
Consequently, the great Muslim empires of Ottomans, Safavids and Moghuls rose and ruled over vast territories from 14th to 18th centuries, but did not establish a single great university nor even noticed such enormous developments as the discovery of America by Columbus or of the solar system by Copernicus and Galileo though they had produced greatest of geographers and astronomers of the world.
It was this, the death of intellectual curiosity among the Muslims, which was the main cause of their decline and downfall rather than deviation from Islam.
The writer is a former ambassador.
THE worsening violence in Iraq and Afghanistan this summer has, at least, been accompanied by vigorous attempts at political solutions.
In Iraq, majority Shias, pressed by the United States, are negotiating with minority Sunnis about the country’s future political structure; although talks over the constitution failed, the contacts are likely to continue even as an upcoming referendum provides a democratic outlet.
Afghanistan’s parliamentary election campaign proceeds despite attacks from extremists, and some former members of the Taliban have chosen to compete rather than fight.
That leaves one major area of the Muslim world where political violence and terrorism is growing, groups linked to al Qaeda are taking root, and no prospect for political accord exists: the north Caucasus, where Chechnya and six other republics chafe under corrupt and increasingly brutal Russian rule.
Though mostly unnoticed by the outside world, violence in the region has been escalating in recent weeks. Last week the prime minister of one republic, Ingushetia, was wounded in an assassination attempt, and a bombing derailed a train in Dagestan.
In Chechnya near-daily clashes continue between Russian troops and insurgents; one ambush and bombing of a police vehicle several weeks ago killed 15.
—The Washington Post